Blood Money?" Karmelo Anthony’s Family Buys Home, Security with $430K After Teen’s Death.

The mother of the murdered teen wept in court when Anthony's bond was lowered.

Anthony is accused of fatally stabbing 17-year-old Austin Metcalf (pictured) in the stands during a track meet on April 2.

The relatives of the teen charged with fatally stabbing a student athlete at a track meet now plan to spend big on a new home and security to shield the alleged killer after his jail release.

Karmelo Anthony walked free on Monday, silently flanked by relatives who posted his $250,000 bond after a judge slashed it from $1 million.

Anthony is charged with fatally stabbing 17-year-old Austin Metcalf in the stands at a track meet on April 2.

Justice Served? Verdict Reached for Men Tied to Mysterious Death of Patriots Fan.

Charges against two men in connection with the death of a New England Patriots supporter have been dropped almost two years on from the fatal incident at Gillette Stadium.

Gillette Stadium, located in Foxborough, Massachusetts, serves as a multi-purpose venue and home to the New England Patriots.

Justin Mitchell and John Vieira, both of Rhode Island, had pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor charges of assault and battery and disorderly conduct after being accused of punching 53-year-old Dale Mooney on September 17, 2023.

Mooney, a season ticket holder for the Patriots, tragically passed away after a fight at the stadium in Foxborough, where New England lost 24-17 to the Miami Dolphins. Eyewitnesses reported that he was brutally attacked by another fan during a brawl in the stands, and shortly after, medics were seen performing CPR on him.

Nearly 19 months later, charges against Mitchell and Vieira were formally dismissed Friday "in the interest of justice," Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey said in a court filing.

Morrissey concluded that after reviewing all the evidence, including the autopsy and various video angles, there wasn't enough to support any homicide charges. A police report from Foxborough, shared by WCVB, indicated that video captured Mooney, Mitchell, and Vieira in a heated argument before other fans attempted to calm things down. Security then responded to a separate conflict where Mooney allegedly ran past them and started a physical fight with Mitchell by grabbing him around the neck.

'Mr. Mooney appears to maintain a hold of/control of Mr. Mitchell as this happens. Then Mr. Mooney appears to lose consciousness and the altercation ends,' the police report alleges.

'Gillette Security then separates Mr. Mooney and Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mooney, who is partially seated, ends up slumped back on top of the seats.'

The Chief Medical Examiner's office initially found no signs of trauma but did point out a health problem with Mooney. Ultimately, it was concluded that the death was a homicide, caused by likely heart rhythm issues in someone with serious heart disease during a fight. Legal experts believe the charges against Mitchell and Vieira were dropped because video evidence supports their claim of self-defense.

Self-Defense in Massachusetts Law

Under Massachusetts law, self-defense can be a complete defense to assault or homicide charges if certain legal standards are met. To lawfully claim self-defense, a defendant must demonstrate:

1. A reasonable belief of imminent harm – The defendant must believe they were in immediate danger of physical harm.

2. Proportional response – The level of force used must be reasonable and not excessive in relation to the threat faced.

3. Duty to retreat (in some cases) – In public places, Massachusetts generally requires a person to retreat if they can do so safely before using deadly force, unless retreat is not feasible.

In the case involving Justin Mitchell and John Vieira, prosecutors reviewed video evidence suggesting that Dale Mooney initiated the physical altercation by grabbing Mitchell. Given that Mitchell and Vieira appeared to act in defense and did not escalate to deadly force, the Norfolk District Attorney concluded there was insufficient evidence to overcome a claim of self-defense. As a result, all criminal charges were dismissed “in the interest of justice.”

BBC Countryfile Star Jailed in £1.8M Tax Fraud Scandal.

An award-winning farmer who once graced the screen on BBC Countryfile has been jailed for two-and-a-half years after he scammed HMRC out of £1.8 million through VAT fraud.

Jack Stilwell — who was once crowned Britain’s Young Farmer of the Year — attempted to cheat the government by submitting fraudulent VAT claims.

The 34-year-old, who rose to international prominence in the industry with his pioneering business model that saw him crowdfund to launch his first farm, "chose to flout the law," according to HMRC.

Stilwell got into trouble for committing fraud with three of his farming businesses. HMRC, which took him to court from Rowlands Castle in Hampshire, investigated him after his wrongdoings that happened between November 2021 and June 2022, with a final act on July 2, 2022. His first crime involved submitting 20 fake VAT returns for Roundstone Beef Ltd, racking up a total of £1,278,277.13. Then, he was convicted for filing a single false VAT return in July 2022 for Greenwell Farms Ltd, claiming £37,621.00. Lastly, he faced charges for submitting eight false statements for Greenwell Holdings Ltd, which added up to £568,345.66.

At Portsmouth Crown Court on Friday, Stilwell was sentenced to two-and-a-half years for tax fraud after confessing to three counts of submitting false VAT returns.

A spokesperson for HMRC said: 'Tax fraud is not a victimless crime. The tax we all pay helps to fund the public services we rely on.

'The majority pay the tax that is due, but a determined minority refuse to play by the rules.

'We are determined to create a level playing field to allow honest businesses to thrive and we encourage anyone with information about tax fraud or money laundering to report it online.'

Stilwell's downfall comes after he launched his own beef farming venture, funded by the public through a groundbreaking crowdfunding campaign. Back in 2015, during his last year at Harper Adams University at just 23, he started a crowdfunder to gather £4,000 for purchasing beef cattle and leasing land. The campaign gained significant attention from agricultural media and farmers globally, as highlighted by the university on its website. A farm owner from the USA generously contributed the entire £4,000, while another in West Sussex offered him 600 acres of land as part of a farm-share initiative.

His business thrived, eventually spanning more than 200 Hereford and Aberdeen-Angus cattle across multiple farms.

In 2015, he was honored as Young Farmer of the Year at the prestigious Food and Farming Industry Awards, and he later gained national attention with appearances on BBC’s Countryfile in 2016 and 2017.

More recently, Stilwell spoke candidly about his struggles with mental health—and, unrepentantly, turned once again to the public for financial support, this time to raise funds for The Farm Safety Foundation.

On his JustGiving page, Stilwell admitted he had been "struggling within myself for a long time and had lost my direction."

His last update came in February, as he attempted to run 500 miles in a year for the charity—even though he had already pleaded guilty to VAT fraud and was awaiting sentencing.

Stilwell wrote on the fundraising page: “As a farmer and business owner, I understand the immense pressure that comes with launching and running an agricultural business.

'This can affect other areas of your life and relationships. Sometimes, you just feel on your own and your thoughts can get as dark as they come. If you, or someone you care for gets to that place, it's really important to know that there is always someone there to help.'

Top 5 Biggest VAT Fraudsters in UK History

1. Sarah Panitzke – £1 Billion VAT Scam

Once dubbed the UK’s most wanted woman, Panitzke played a key role in a colossal £1 billion mobile phone VAT fraud. She fled during trial in 2013 and was finally captured in Spain nearly a decade later. After extradition, she received a combined 17-year sentence, including time for failing to repay £2.4 million under a confiscation order.

2. Syed Ahmed & Shakeel Ahmad – £37.5 Million VAT Fraud

Leaders of a 21-person gang, Ahmed and Ahmad masterminded one of the UK’s largest carousel frauds. Although originally convicted for a £12.6 million VAT con, they were ordered to repay £184 million—and sentenced to an extra 10 years each for refusing to comply.

3. Green Tax Gang – £107.9 Million Environmental Fraud

Five professionals, including scientists and bankers, sold fake green investment schemes to wealthy clients. The plan? Pocket nearly £108 million in fraudulent tax reliefs. The scam led to a combined 43 years of jail time—and one of the biggest tax fraud crackdowns in HMRC history.

4. Alcohol Smuggling Syndicate – £120 Million Fraud

Operating across Windsor and Slough, this gang scammed £34 million in VAT and laundered another £87 million through illegal alcohol sales. The ringleaders created fake companies and falsified documents to pull off the massive operation. Their punishment? Over 46 years collectively behind bars.

5. Stephen Pigott – £40 Million VAT Evasion

A former songwriter-turned-fraudster, Pigott ran a £40 million VAT fraud through a mobile phone trading scheme. After skipping bail, he vanished abroad for 14 years—only to be caught when he returned for his daughter’s wedding. He now owes millions in restitution and faces a long sentence.

🔎 Other True Crime Stories You May Like

• 🎥 Gone Girls: How Accurate Is Netflix’s Latest True Crime Hit?
  Dive into the real story behind Gone Girls and what Netflix got right—and wrong.

• ⚖️ Couple Jailed for Life After Exploiting Adopted Children
  Inside the shocking case of abuse, deception, and betrayal that stunned a nation.

• 📺 The Con Mum: Netflix Doc Unravels a Mother’s Double Life
  A master manipulator or misunderstood mum? This Netflix documentary leaves no stone unturned.

Tay-K47 Found Guilty in Deadly Chick-fil-A Shooting—Now Faces Life Behind Bars.

The rapper, famous for his 2017 hit “The Race,” was earlier sentenced to 55 years behind bars for a different deadly shooting.

Rapper Tay-K47 has been convicted of murder for a second time. Tay-K, whose real name is Taymor McIntyre, showed up in court on Monday, April 14, facing charges for the murder of 23-year-old Mark Anthony Saldivar.

The photographer was tragically shot at a Chick-fil-A in San Antonio on April 23, 2017, as reported by KSAT 12 and News4SA. McIntyre was acquitted of capital murder, which would have led to a life sentence without parole. However, the jury did find him guilty of the lesser charge of murder, according to the reports. Prosecutors claimed that McIntyre attempted to steal Saldivar's camera gear before shooting him in the car he had picked him up in, as stated by Fort Worth Star-Telegram and NBC News.

The rapper’s lawyers criticized the police’s handling of the shooting, alleging that there was excessive reliance on statements from witnesses.

“Taymor McIntyre is not guilty of capital murder, murder, or manslaughter, and the reason for that is very simple,” John Hunter, one of McIntyre’s attorneys, said during closing arguments, per NBC News. “You have to do it right. You have to do the work. And this case clearly demonstrates the work wasn’t done.”

How a Photoshoot Turned Deadly: The Case Against Tay-K47

Rapper Tay-K47, born Taymor McIntyre, was found guilty of murder in the 2017 shooting of photographer Mark Anthony Saldivar outside a Chick-fil-A in San Antonio. At the time, Tay-K had been on the run—he had cut off his ankle monitor while awaiting trial for an earlier murder charge. He reportedly lured Saldivar under the pretense of a photoshoot to promote his music, but the meeting turned violent when Tay-K and his associates attempted to rob him of his equipment. Saldivar was fatally shot during the altercation.

A key witness, Joanna Reyes, testified that she saw Tay-K pull the trigger—a claim she made as part of a plea deal to reduce her own charges. Although the jury acquitted Tay-K of capital murder, they convicted him of the lesser charge of murder. He faced a possible sentence of 5 to 99 years, in addition to the 55-year sentence he was already serving for his role in a deadly 2016 home invasion.

🧨 More Shocking Celebrity Legal Battles

• Drake Lawsuit Heats Up
  Inside the courtroom drama sparked by Kendrick Lamar’s diss track and Drake’s explosive legal response.
  Read more →

• $1.7 Billion Verdict Against James Toback
  A historic ruling rocks Hollywood as director James Toback is held liable in a massive sex abuse case.
  Read more →

• Andrew Tate Faces UK Charges
  Gun threats, rape allegations, and a growing international case—here’s what Tate is up against now.
  Read more →

• Blueface Loses Defamation Case
  Rapper ordered to pay damages after defaming a woman online—here’s how the judgment unfolded.
  Read more →

Court Rules on Access to Payment Systems in Dispute Between States and Trump Administration.

In a landmark decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on a legal dispute concerning the access granted to the Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS) payment systems by members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team. The court's decision has significant implications for the use of sensitive data within the federal government, particularly in the context of privacy laws and the security of state-level financial information.

The case, brought by 19 states (collectively referred to as the "States" or "Plaintiffs"), challenged actions taken by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Trump administration, which provided members of the Treasury DOGE Team with access to BFS systems. The plaintiffs argue that this access violated multiple federal laws, including the Privacy Act and the E-Government Act of 2002. They claim that the actions taken by the federal defendants posed significant risks to the security of state residents' personally identifiable information (PII), including Social Security numbers and bank account details.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy centers around Executive Order 14,158, signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025. This executive order established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with the aim of modernizing federal technology and enhancing governmental efficiency. The DOGE teams, formed within various federal agencies, were tasked with advising on implementing the President's agenda.

One such team was created within the U.S. Treasury Department. This Treasury DOGE Team, led by Thomas H. Krause, Jr. and technical specialist Marko Elez, sought access to the BFS payment systems to "identify data gaps" and "advance payment integrity and fraud reduction goals." However, their request raised concerns due to the sensitive nature of the data within the BFS systems, which include records of federal payments to state agencies, along with PII of state residents.

The States argued that providing the DOGE Team access to these systems introduced significant security risks, including the possibility of cyber attacks and unauthorized data disclosures. Furthermore, the plaintiffs alleged that the policy could be used to block payments to states that they were entitled to under federal law.

Court’s Preliminary Injunction and Ruling

On February 21, 2025, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas issued a preliminary injunction, halting the Treasury Department's decision to grant DOGE Team members access to the BFS payment systems. The court found that the plaintiffs had shown a strong likelihood of success in their claim that the Treasury’s actions were "arbitrary and capricious." In contrast, the court found the plaintiffs unlikely to prevail on the statutory claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), particularly because they could not meet the "zone of interests" test.

The court’s decision was grounded in the significant privacy risks posed by allowing access to sensitive financial data. The States, as recipients of federal funds processed through BFS, argued that the risks associated with unauthorized disclosures of confidential information outweighed any potential benefits from the DOGE Team's efforts to improve payment systems. Judge Vargas noted that the plaintiffs had demonstrated standing, establishing that there was a real and present danger of future harm to their financial information.

Motion for Reconsideration and Partial Dissolution of the Injunction

Following the issuance of the preliminary injunction, the parties filed motions for reconsideration. Defendants sought to partially dissolve the injunction, allowing a new member of the Treasury DOGE Team to access the BFS payment systems, arguing that such access was crucial for advancing the goals of government efficiency. On the other hand, the plaintiffs sought to reconsider aspects of the court's ruling that had determined they were unlikely to succeed on their claims under the Privacy Act and the E-Government Act.

After careful consideration, the court ruled to deny the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, maintaining its position that they were unlikely to prevail on their statutory claims. However, the court granted the defendants’ motion to partially dissolve the preliminary injunction, permitting a new member of the Treasury DOGE Team to access the BFS systems under specified conditions.

Implications of the Court’s Decision

This case underscores the ongoing tension between governmental efforts to modernize and streamline operations and the imperative to protect citizens' privacy and security. The ruling highlights the importance of ensuring that access to sensitive federal payment systems is carefully scrutinized to prevent unauthorized disclosures and mitigate the risk of cyber threats.

The partial dissolution of the injunction signals that while the Treasury’s modernization efforts may continue, there must be stringent safeguards in place to protect against privacy violations. As the case progresses, further legal challenges may arise regarding the balance between governmental efficiency and the safeguarding of citizens' personal data.

📚 Further Reading

🔹 NaphCare Held Liable in Inmate Death After Jail Medical Neglect
A federal jury rules against private medical contractor in the death of Cindy Lou Hill.
Read more

🔹 Tesla Faces Legal Setback Over Defamation Case
The Ninth Circuit tosses Tesla’s arbitration win in a high-profile defamation case.
Read more

🔹 Exxon Sued for Alleged Trespass and Pollution at Texas Refinery
A class-action lawsuit targets ExxonMobil over land and groundwater contamination.
Read more

🔹 Man Charged in Fire at Pennsylvania Governor’s Mansion
A dramatic arson case unfolds inside one of the state’s most iconic buildings.
Read more

🔹 Judge Paula Xinis Challenges Trump-Era Deportation
A Maryland judge reverses a mistaken deportation tied to a federal misstep.
Read more

🔹 Justice for Sara Millerey: A Colombia Tragedy Sparks Global Outcry
The international fight for justice in the killing of a young woman abroad.
Read more

Federal Appeals Court Vacates Sentence in North Carolina Armed Robbery Case.

A federal court says a 12-year sentence handed down after a gas station robbery in New Bern can’t stand—because the process, not just the crime, fell short of justice.

Quamaine Donell Smith walked into a gas station in New Bern, North Carolina, with a revolver in hand. It was May 2021. According to court documents, he pointed the weapon at the cashier, demanded money, and then went behind the counter. There, he struck the clerk in the head and grabbed cash and several cartons of cigarettes before leaving the store in a Honda CRV with a co-defendant.

The entire robbery was caught on surveillance video. Smith was arrested and later pleaded guilty in federal court to robbery and using a firearm during a violent crime. He also signed a plea agreement waiving his right to appeal the sentence.

That plea—and the sentence that followed—were supposed to close the book on the case.

They didn’t.

The Court Found a Problem With the Process

Smith was sentenced to 144 months in prison. But on appeal, his attorneys argued the waiver of his appeal rights wasn’t valid. They said the district court judge had mishandled the plea hearing and failed to ensure Smith understood what he was agreeing to.

More than that, they claimed the sentencing itself was flawed—that the judge didn’t address Smith’s mitigation arguments or explain how the 12-year sentence was reached.

This month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

A Miscarriage of Justice

In a published opinion issued April 14, the appellate panel vacated Smith’s sentence. Writing for the court, Judge Thacker found that Smith’s appeal waiver had not been made knowingly or intelligently. Enforcing it, the court ruled, “would result in a miscarriage of justice.”

That wasn’t all. The court also called the sentence procedurally unreasonable and ordered that the case be reassigned to a different district court judge for resentencing.

The opinion reflects a strong rebuke—not of the facts of the crime, but of how the legal process was handled afterward.

Smith will remain in federal custody, but his 144-month sentence no longer stands. A new judge will now be assigned to resentence him, this time under closer scrutiny.

The conviction remains in place. What’s changed is the court’s insistence that a guilty plea does not excuse procedural mistakes—or remove a defendant’s right to fair treatment at sentencing.

Opinion: Justice Isn’t Just About What You Did — It’s About How the System Treats You

Quamaine Donell Smith committed a violent robbery. He admitted it. There’s surveillance footage. A plea deal was signed. But despite all that, a federal court has thrown out his 12-year sentence—not because of what happened at the gas station, but because of what happened in the courtroom.

According to the Fourth Circuit, Smith’s plea agreement wasn’t handled properly. The district court failed to ensure he understood the rights he was giving up, particularly the waiver of his right to appeal. The judges went even further, calling the sentencing process itself “procedurally unreasonable.” Smith’s mitigating arguments were ignored, and the judge gave no real explanation for the sentence. The court didn’t overturn the conviction, but it did order resentencing in front of a different judge—a rare move that signals just how seriously it viewed the breakdown.

Some will look at this case and see a man getting off on a technicality. But that’s the wrong takeaway. This isn’t about guilt or innocence—it’s about whether the justice system followed its own rules. Plea deals can’t be treated like routine paperwork. Sentences can’t be rubber-stamped. If the system cuts corners in a case with video evidence and a confession, how do we trust it to protect the rights of people with less? Justice isn’t just about outcomes. It’s about the process. When the courts demand that process be done right—even for the guilty—they’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to do.

📚 Further Reading

🔹 NaphCare Held Liable in Inmate Death After Jail Medical Neglect
A federal jury rules against private medical contractor in the death of Cindy Lou Hill.
Read more

🔹 Tesla Faces Legal Setback Over Defamation Case
The Ninth Circuit tosses Tesla’s arbitration win in a high-profile defamation case.
Read more

🔹 Exxon Sued for Alleged Trespass and Pollution at Texas Refinery
A class-action lawsuit targets ExxonMobil over land and groundwater contamination.
Read more

🔹 Man Charged in Fire at Pennsylvania Governor’s Mansion
A dramatic arson case unfolds inside one of the state’s most iconic buildings.
Read more

🔹 Judge Paula Xinis Challenges Trump-Era Deportation
A Maryland judge reverses a mistaken deportation tied to a federal misstep.
Read more

🔹 Justice for Sara Millerey: A Colombia Tragedy Sparks Global Outcry
The international fight for justice in the killing of a young woman abroad.
Read more

How to Get the Maximum Payout for Your Personal Injury Claim in 2025.

If you’ve been hurt in an accident, you might be entitled to far more than what the insurance company offers. But here’s the catch: the system is designed to pay out as little as possible, unless you know how to fight for what you truly deserve.

This step-by-step guide will show you how to maximize your compensation and avoid common traps that cost victims thousands.

Step 1: Get Medical Attention Fast

Even if your injuries seem minor, seeing a doctor right away is essential. Insurance companies look at how quickly you sought treatment. Delays give them an excuse to downplay your injuries or deny your claim entirely.

“The longer you wait, the easier it is for insurance companies to argue your injuries aren’t serious,” explains John Gomez, founder of Gomez Trial Attorneys in San Diego.

Make sure to follow every part of your treatment plan and keep all records, including prescriptions, physical therapy logs, and test results. These documents are the foundation of your case.

Step 2: Don’t Go It Alone with Insurance Companies

Insurance adjusters may sound polite, but their goal is simple: pay you as little as possible. They’re trained to ask questions that can be used against you later.

Morgan McGrath, partner at McGrath Gibson Injury Attorneys, puts it bluntly: “People don’t realize how much they’re giving up by accepting the first offer.”

Never give a recorded statement or accept a check before speaking to a qualified personal injury attorney.

Step 3: Build a Case with Strong Documentation

A personal injury claim lives or dies on the strength of the evidence. Take clear photos of the accident scene and your injuries. Keep receipts for medical treatment, vehicle repairs, and any out-of-pocket expenses.

It’s also wise to keep a personal injury journal. Record your symptoms, your pain levels, and how the injury has affected your daily life. This can powerfully illustrate non-economic damages like pain and suffering.

Step 4: Hire a Lawyer Who Knows How to Win

One of the biggest mistakes people make is trying to handle their claim without legal help. The right attorney can mean the difference between a few thousand and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“Hiring a lawyer signals to the insurance company that you’re serious,” says Professor Nora Engstrom of Stanford Law School, an expert in tort law.

Personal injury attorneys typically work on a contingency basis, meaning they only get paid if you win. That levels the playing field.

Step 5: Understand What You’re Really Owed

A fair settlement isn’t just about reimbursing your medical bills. You may be entitled to additional damages like lost wages, future medical costs, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Many people leave money on the table simply because they don’t know what their claim is really worth.

Step 6: Stay Silent on Social Media

This can’t be overstated: anything you post online can and likely will be used against you. Insurance investigators routinely monitor social media accounts.

Even something as innocent as a vacation photo or gym selfie can be twisted to suggest you’re not really injured. While your case is active, it's best to stay off social platforms entirely.

Step 7: Be Patient - Settling Too Fast Can Cost You

It’s tempting to take the first offer just to get it over with. But that quick check may not cover your future medical care, especially if you require surgery, long-term therapy, or chronic pain management.

Dan Newlin, founder of Dan Newlin Injury Attorneys, warns: “Settling too soon is the number one mistake we see. You only get one shot.”

Patience allows your lawyer to build leverage, gather expert opinions, and negotiate from a position of strength.

More Articles from Lawyer Monthly

• How Do Personal Injury Lawyers Fight for Low-Income Victims?
  Explore how legal advocates are closing the justice gap for vulnerable injury victims.

• Documenting Evidence in Personal Injury Claims
  Why proper documentation can make or break your personal injury case.

• U.S. Transfers Mexican Inmates, Saves $3M
  A cross-border legal move with major financial and political implications.

• Texas Bans Vape Ads Near Schools
  New legislation takes aim at youth vaping with stricter advertising laws.

• Nick Carter Faces Sexual Assault & HPV Transmission Lawsuit
  A high-profile case raises questions about celebrity accountability and civil claims.

"I’m Sick, I’m Sick": She Died in Jail. Now the Company That Failed Her Faces Accountability

After a woman died in jail screaming in pain, a jury found her medical care provider responsible. A federal court just agreed.

On a Saturday morning in August 2018, a nurse found Cindy Lou Hill curled up on the floor of her Spokane County Jail cell. She wasn’t speaking in sentences—just repeating one phrase: “I’m sick, I’m sick.”

She was holding her stomach. She couldn’t get up. She was in pain and visibly afraid. Her cellmate told the nurse Hill had been dealing with severe abdominal pain. She’d spent the night crying out, unable to lie flat.

Cindy Lou Hill, pictured here in a family photo, was 55 when she died at Spokane County Jail in August 2018. A U.S. District Court jury has awarded her estate $27 million in damages. (Photo courtesy of the Hill family)

The nurse stayed with her for about five minutes. She had Hill moved in a wheelchair to a part of the jail called “medical watch”—not a hospital. Not even a medical bay with professionals on duty. Just a special cell with a window where untrained jail guards were tasked with watching her through the door.

That afternoon, the nurse came back. She stood outside Hill’s new cell for less than two minutes, wrote in the log that Hill wasn’t in visible distress, and walked away.

By 5:25 p.m., it was over. A corrections officer found Hill unconscious. CPR was started, but it was too late. She was taken to the hospital and pronounced dead.

What Killed Cindy Lou Hill?

An autopsy found that Hill died from acute bacterial peritonitis—a serious, extremely painful infection caused by a rupture in her digestive system. It had gone untreated.

And now, after years of legal wrangling, a federal court has confirmed what a jury already found: the company responsible for Hill’s medical care while she was in jail, NaphCare, failed her. And that failure wasn’t just medical—it was constitutional.

The Verdict: Not Just One Nurse, But a System

A jury had already determined that Hill was deprived of her right to adequate medical care. They said this wasn’t just about one nurse’s poor decision. It was about a policy—a pattern—of cutting corners when it came to care.

NaphCare’s approach to monitoring sick inmates relied heavily on “medical watch.” But that setup didn’t include nurses or doctors checking in. Instead, jail guards with no medical training were tasked with watching inmates through a cell window every 30 minutes. They weren’t told to speak to the inmates. They weren’t trained to check symptoms or detect distress. They were just expected to log whether the person was alive.

In Hill’s case, that wasn’t enough. And according to expert witnesses in court, it was never going to be.

One medical expert testified that it was common for NaphCare to hand over care of acutely ill inmates to correctional staff. Another described the approach as a “regular practice.” Even NaphCare’s own witness acknowledged that this “medical watch” was routinely used for patients needing acute monitoring—despite the fact that trained medical professionals weren’t the ones doing the watching.

One jail officer even described something called the “shake and wake” procedure for people experiencing alcohol withdrawal, a condition that can also be fatal if ignored. That procedure, like the others, relied on corrections staff—not healthcare workers—to detect signs of a medical emergency.

NaphCare Tried to Undo the Verdict. The Court Said No.

NaphCare challenged the jury’s decision, saying the evidence wasn’t strong enough to support the verdict. They claimed the jury had to “speculate” to hold them liable under civil rights law.

But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The judges said there was more than enough evidence to support what the jury found: that NaphCare had a custom or policy of turning seriously ill people over to guards, instead of giving them real medical care.

In short, the court said Hill’s death wasn’t just a tragedy—it was the predictable result of a broken system.

Beyond the Verdict

This ruling doesn't just speak to one woman’s death—it sends a message to the entire for-profit jail healthcare industry. If you take on the job of caring for people in custody, you can’t rely on window checks and paper logs. You can’t train your staff to cut corners and then hide behind procedures when someone dies.

It’s not enough to say someone looked alive at 3 p.m. if they’re dead by 5.

What Comes Next

The court didn’t overturn the entire verdict—but it did send part of it back. Specifically, it ruled that the punitive damages awarded to Hill’s estate were too high, and ordered the lower court to reduce them. But NaphCare’s liability? That stands.

They were found responsible for how Hill was treated. And now, they remain on the hook for what happened to her that August day.

In the end, this wasn’t about a nurse making a bad call. It was about a system—one that saw a woman in pain, placed her in a cell, and walked away.

And now, finally, someone’s being held accountable.

🔎 You Might Also Like:

⚖️ Tesla Faces Court Setback Over Defamation Case Technicality
Cristina Balan wins a legal challenge as the Ninth Circuit tosses Tesla’s arbitration victory on jurisdictional grounds.
Read more

🧑‍⚖️ Judge Paula Xinis and the Trump-Era Deportation Reversal
A Maryland man’s mistaken deportation and the federal judge who challenged it.
Read more

🔥 Man Charged in Fire at Pennsylvania Governor’s Mansion
A high-profile arson case unfolds at the heart of state government.
Read more

🌍 Exxon Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Trespass and Refinery Pollution
Texas landowners take on ExxonMobil over claims of toxic contamination.
Read more

🚜 Ohio Moves to Ban Foreign Ownership of Farmland
New legislation targets national security and land use across the Buckeye State.
Read more

Tesla Loses Court Fight Over Defamation Case Technicality.

Cristina Balan went up against Elon Musk’s Tesla in a defamation dispute—and just walked away with a legal win that could have some very real consequences.

It’s not every day you see Elon Musk and Tesla get knocked back in court. But that’s exactly what happened this week—and not because a jury sided against them or because new evidence came to light. It was something much simpler, and arguably more embarrassing: They filed the paperwork wrong.

At the heart of this story is Cristina Balan, a former Tesla engineer who says the company—and Musk himself—damaged her reputation. Her legal fight has been brewing for years, mostly out of sight. But thanks to a new ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it’s very much back in the spotlight.

From Inside Tesla to Legal Battle

Balan was once a rising name at Tesla, helping develop the Model S. But things went sour. After raising concerns internally and eventually parting ways with the company, she claimed Tesla and Musk made false, public statements about her. In short: she said they defamed her.

The company, as many do in these situations, pushed the dispute into arbitration. That’s a private legal process that companies often prefer because it keeps things quiet and out of courtrooms. In the end, the arbitrator ruled in Tesla’s favor. Balan got nothing—a zero-dollar award.

Tesla then took things one step further. They went to federal court, asking a judge to confirm the arbitration win, which would effectively make it official and harder to challenge down the road.

And that’s where it all started to fall apart.

The Technicality That Took Tesla Down

At first, the district court granted Tesla’s request. Case closed, or so it seemed. But Balan appealed—and her lawyers pointed to a 2022 Supreme Court ruling called Badgerow v. Walters.

That case laid down a new rule: when it comes to confirming arbitration awards in federal court, judges aren’t allowed to peek behind the curtain. They can’t look at the original dispute to decide whether they have jurisdiction. Everything they need to say “yes, we can take this case” has to be right there, on the surface of the petition.

Tesla’s problem? Their petition didn’t include enough. The award was for zero dollars, and there was nothing in the filing showing that the legal fight involved more than $75,000—the minimum needed for federal court in a case between people in different states.

So the Ninth Circuit took one look and said, nope.

Not So Fast, Elon

In a unanimous opinion, the court vacated the district court’s decision and sent it back with clear instructions: dismiss the case. Not because Balan proved she was defamed, and not because Tesla did anything outrageous. But because they tried to use the federal courts without playing by the rules.

For Tesla, this is more of a procedural faceplant than a public trial disaster. Still, it’s not a great look.

Why This Matters More Than You Think

This case might seem like a blip—legal housekeeping, a paperwork issue. But it could have bigger consequences for how companies use arbitration.

Corporations love arbitration because it keeps messy disputes behind closed doors. But they also rely on federal courts to enforce those wins when it counts. What this ruling says is: you don’t get to take shortcuts. If you’re going to lean on the legal system, especially at the federal level, you need to show your work.

And that’s good news for people like Cristina Balan, who often find themselves up against companies with deep pockets and powerful lawyers. It means there’s still room to challenge the system—even if the odds seem stacked.

What Happens Now?

The case goes back to the lower court, where it’ll be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. What Balan decides to do next is unclear—she might take the fight to state court or explore other options.

Either way, she’s walked away with something that matters: a second chance.

And for Tesla? It’s a reminder that in the world of legal strategy, even giants can trip on the fine print.

🔎 You Might Also Like:

• Judge Paula Xinis and the Trump-Era Deportation Reversal
  A Maryland man’s mistaken deportation and the federal judge who challenged it.
  Read more

• Man Charged in Fire at Pennsylvania Governor’s Mansion
  A high-profile arson case unfolds at the heart of state government.
  Read more

•  Exxon Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Trespass and Refinery Pollution
   Read more

• Ohio Moves to Ban Foreign Ownership of Farmland
  New legislation targets national security and land use across the Buckeye State.
  Read more

• Clifford Chance Advises on GreenYellow C&I Stake Sale
  A major energy transition deal sees GreenYellow divest its commercial & industrial unit.
   Read more

Exxon Must Face Trespass Suit Over Refinery Pollution

ExxonMobil is back in court—and this time, it’s for allegedly poisoning the ground beneath a Southern California neighborhood.

A federal appeals court on Monday 14th April, 2025 revived claims that the oil giant trespassed under California law by allowing toxic petroleum waste from its Torrance refinery to seep into the soil near nearby homes. The decision breathes new life into a yearslong legal battle over long-term pollution from one of the region’s oldest industrial sites.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided in part with plaintiff Jose Navarro, a Torrance resident who brought the suit in 2017 on behalf of himself and others living in the shadow of the refinery. Navarro alleged that the facility leaked hazardous materials into the surrounding soil and groundwater—pollution that then released harmful vapors into nearby residences.

In a short, unpublished decision, the court said Navarro’s claim that ExxonMobil committed trespass by contaminating the land beneath his property should not have been thrown out by the lower court. The panel found that his allegations, which included subsurface contamination, fell squarely within California’s definition of trespass—even though the pollution wasn’t visible.

The district court had dismissed the trespass claim, interpreting it too narrowly as focused only on vapor intrusion. But the Ninth Circuit said that view missed the broader allegations of soil and groundwater contamination at the heart of Navarro’s lawsuit.

“The district court’s dismissal...was based on an overly narrow interpretation of Navarro’s trespass allegations and is therefore reversed,” the panel wrote.

The appeals court also reversed a lower court ruling that decertified a group of residents Navarro hoped to represent—those allegedly impacted by ground contamination. That subclass will now return to the district court for reconsideration.

However, it wasn’t a full victory for Navarro. The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of his public nuisance claims, finding that he didn’t show enough evidence of serious or “substantial” harm under California law. Navarro had pointed to health risks associated with airborne pollutants from the refinery, but the court said those risks weren’t high enough to trigger regulatory intervention or legal action.

Without a viable nuisance claim, Navarro also lost his bid to represent a second group of residents—those affected by air pollution from the refinery. That part of the case remains closed.

What’s Next?

The ruling means ExxonMobil must now defend itself against allegations that it trespassed by contaminating private land—a charge that, if proven, could carry serious legal and financial consequences.

The case, which stretches back nearly a decade, has become a flashpoint in Torrance, where environmental and community groups have long accused the refinery of operating with too little oversight. The refinery, built in 1929 and once owned by Exxon, has changed hands in recent years but remains a major industrial presence in the Los Angeles basin.

For now, the lawsuit heads back to federal district court, where Navarro’s trespass claim and the reinstated subclass could move closer to trial.

ExxonMobil has denied wrongdoing and previously argued that Navarro’s claims didn’t meet the legal threshold for either trespass or nuisance. A spokesperson for the company didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

📌 Top 5 Takeaways from Navarro v. ExxonMobil:

1. 🏠 Trespass Claim Revived

   • The appeals court reversed the dismissal of Navarro’s trespass claim, allowing it to proceed based on soil and groundwater contamination, not just vapor intrusion.

2. 👥 Ground Subclass Back in Play

   • The court vacated the decertification of the Ground Subclass, meaning those affected by underground pollution may still be part of a class action.

3. ❌ Nuisance Claim Dismissal Upheld

   • Navarro’s claim that air pollution caused substantial harm was rejected; the court found no triable issue of fact.

4. 🚫 Air Subclass Decertification Stands

   • Since the nuisance claim failed, Navarro can’t represent the Air Subclass, and the court declined to review that part of the appeal.

5. 🔄 Case Sent Back to Lower Court

   • The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the revived trespass claim and reconsideration of class certification.

🔎 You Might Also Like:

• 🏛️ Judge Paula Xinis and the Trump-Era Deportation Reversal
  A Maryland man’s mistaken deportation and the federal judge who challenged it.
  👉 Read more

• 🔥 Man Charged in Fire at Pennsylvania Governor’s Mansion
  A high-profile arson case unfolds at the heart of state government.
  👉 Read more

• 🌍 Ohio Moves to Ban Foreign Ownership of Farmland
  New legislation targets national security and land use across the Buckeye State.
  👉 Read more

• 💼 Clifford Chance Advises on GreenYellow C&I Stake Sale
  A major energy transition deal sees GreenYellow divest its commercial & industrial unit.
  👉 Read more